Why were the jury going to find Mike Ross not guilty?
When Harvey goes to see the jury foreman to ask about Mike's verdict, the foreman tells Harvey that Mike was going to be found not guilty even though he states that everyone in the room knew Mike didn't go to law school.
He then goes on to say that the reason he was going to be found not guilty is because the prosecutor, Anita Gibbs, didn't make her case.
What did he mean by this, as I felt she did a very good job making her case, and why was Mike going to be found not guilty despite the irrefutable evidence that he didn't go to law school? Was Mike's last speech that powerful that it led to the juries' sympathy?
Best Answer
Mike did not go to law school and there was irrefutable evidence on that. But still, Anita Gibbs had to make her case. Her case stemmed mostly from her personal vendetta against Harvey and she just used the Mike situation to get back at him. Every jury member except one found him guilty but only one managed to look beyond the veil. He believed in true justice and realised Mike did the right thing even if it was not the easy thing. Hence pronounced him innocent.
Pictures about "Why were the jury going to find Mike Ross not guilty?"
What was the verdict going to be in suits?
Harvey tells Mike that the jury was going to find him innocent; however, the jury's verdict was 'not guilty', and as attorneys, both Harvey and Mike would know the difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty'.Does Louis turn Harvey in?
Scared of going to prison, Louis confronts Harvey about him hiring a fraud and asks Harvey to turn himself in, blaming Harvey for the whole ordeal. Harvey tells Louis that he is in this as well, since he had a chance to turn Mike in but instead used his secret to become name partner.Harvey Finds Out The Verdict Was NOT GUILTY! | Suits
Sources: Stack Exchange - This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Exchange and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
Images: Diego Rodriguez, Lennart Wittstock, Monstera, Benjamin Suter